add_expense

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it adds an expense, without mentioning side effects, permissions, idempotency, validation behavior, or what happens on success/failure. The date format is a useful detail but does not compensate for the lack of transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Add'. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the parameters but lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. The existence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the description still feels thin for an agent to fully understand when and how to use it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description lists all parameters and marks description and date as optional, and specifies the date format. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not fully compensate by explaining the meaning of category/subcategory or any constraints beyond the schema's types. It adds some value but leaves gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action (Add a new expense) and lists the key parameters (amount, category, subcategory, description, date). It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_expenses, get_expense_summary, delete_expense) by being the creation tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when adding a new expense) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for use versus the sibling tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.